§ Mr. H. Rosspresented a Petition from Woollen Manufacturers of Aberdeen, praying that the provisions of the Cotton Factories Apprentices Bill, regulating the hours of employment of children engaged in manufactories, should not be extended to Scotland. The petitioners represented, that the cases of England and Scoltand were different. In the latter there were neither Poor-laws, nor any system of apprenticeship. He cordially supported their prayer, particularly as there had been no complaint on this subject in Scotland.
Mr. Hobhousestated, that he had not yet made up his mind whether or not he should propose the extension of the Bill to that part of the empire. He was willing to admit there was some difference between the two countries, on the points noticed by the hon. Member, but the House, of course, would take these into consideration. With regard to there having been no complaints from Scotland, the hon. Gentleman must confine what he had said to the woollen manufacturers, for he had presented four petitions, and had two more yet to present, praying that Scotland might be included in the Bill. On the whole, however, he was inclined to think he should alter the measure, so as to exclude Scotland.
An Hon. Membersaid, it was a dangerous experiment to interfere between masters and their operatives. The feeling in Scotland was against the measure. The manufacturing population there, differed in their habits from the same class of people in England. The Scotch were very careful that their children should not be over-worked, and the masters paid great attention to their health and morals. A case might be made out for the introduction of such a measure as regarded England, where the influence of the Poor-laws was engrafted in all the institutions of the country. He hoped Scotland would never be cursed by such an encroachment on her system.
§ Mr. Edmund Peelsaid, it would be unjust, to the English manufacturer, to limit his hours of working, and except the Scotch from such regulations.
An Hon. Membersaid, the House would find that manufactories in Scotland and 389 England, were conducted on different principles; it was not unusual in the latter country to apprentice pauper children to manufacturers; but that was never the case in the former, where the children employed were treated with the greatest attention and kindness. He appealed to every Gentleman who had visited Lanark, if such was not the case, and if the children were not educated and managed better than they could possibly be at home with their parents. The measure was not wanted, and was unpopular in Scotland, and he hoped that country would be excluded from its operations.
§ Mr. Hunthoped the hon. member for Westminster would persevere with his Bill, and pay no attention to Gentlemen who were manufacturers themselves. He could of his own knowledge declare, that children were cruelly treated in manufactories. At from five to seven years of age, they were worked many hours, while the masters stood over them; their labour consisted in pushing a board forward with their knees, and it was incessant. Their joints soon became inflamed, and they then moved the board by an inclination of the body sideways. The consequence was, that nineteen out of twenty of these unhappy children became ultimately deformed. It was inhuman to work children as they were accustomed to do in Lancashire and Cheshire.
§ Mr. H. Rosssaid, the hon. member for Preston's statement, was confined to England, and would not justify the extension of the bill to Scotland, where the children were not hardly treated. At present, all the parties interested were contented, and declared there was no necessity to legislate for them. It was apprehended, that if the bill passed in its present shape, it would facilitate the introduction of Poor-laws into Scotland, which were considered a curse: on these grounds he opposed the extension of the measure. Some complaints might have been made of the cotton manufactories of Glasgow, and if so, let the remedy be confined to them, but no new regulations were required for the woollen or flax trades.
An Hon. Memberassured the hon. member for Preston, he was not a manufacturer; he would further assure him, that the manufacturers of Scotland took as much interest in the welfare of children employed by them, as the hon. Gentleman possibly could; at the same time, though he 390 was not a manufacturer, he should object to the extension of this Bill to Scotland.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, the children employed in manufactories ought to have proper time allowed them for air and exercise. They did not appear to have this, and he was satisfied some regulations should be enforced, to regulate their hours of employment.
Sir James Johnstonedid not understand why the object of the Bill, which was to prevent children being over-worked in manufactories, should not be extended to Scotland. The intention of it was, to protect humane manufacturers from unfair competition with those who worked children to excess. The honest and upright manufacturers of Yorkshire required this protection, to promote the comforts of the children they employed.
§ Mr. John Woodhoped the hon. member for Westminster would persevere with his Bill, so far at least as regarded England.
Mr. Hobhousehad not the slightest intention of abandoning the measure as regarded England. There was much weight in the observations of the hon. member for Newcastle, that the exemption of Scotland, to which he had previously been inclined, from the representations made to him, would give an unfair preference to the manufacturers of that country.
§ Mr. Huntcould not understand why the Members connected with Scotland should oppose a bill, the object of which was to provide for the recreation of children.
§ Mr. Edmund Peelsaid, the Bill did not provide for the recreation of children; it merely regulated their hours of labour.
§ Petition to be printed.